First, the CD entitled "The Text of the United States Constitution" read by Walter Cronkite was not really him reading the document. It was a fairly brief (2.5 hours of narration) discussion of the themes and background with guest voices doing the parts of people like Hamilton. Fairly interesting as far as it goes, including the point that the Articles of Confederation is not a "constitution" per se. Not fundamental law for the people; it is more of a treaty sort of deal. Original Constitution, not amendments.
Second, I caught part of Q&A, the interview show Brian Lamb is doing these days now that Booknotes ran its course. Asra Nomani, a colleague of Daniel Pearl, was on ... decent amount of focus on the Angelina Jolie movie. Lamb saw the movie and was interested in the dynamics, especially given Nomani was portrayed in the film. Nomani was upset about the whole thing, not realizing that it would be so much of a star vehicle for Jolie. And, various facts were changed in the film. Surely, she knows this last part is de rigueur in such things, including portrayals of fairly recent history?
I thought this naive -- the movie is after all based on an autobiography of his wife, and it did have a big star in it. I have not seen it, though two people I know basically liked it, but the general sentiment seems to be that Jolie was rather good and downplayed her flashy persona appropriately. She might be right that the movie could have told more about Daniel Pearl, which might add to the proceedings -- see what everyone lost, why they were so passionate about finding him.
Nomani also didn't think the search heroic, but if nothing else, it probably was good drama. For instance, Jill Carroll -- who survived and did not have as much of a colorful supporting cast (so to speak) -- was a great story when she was kidnapped.* Who doesn't like such a drama with foreign locales and the rest? Clearly, she chose unwisely in taking part in the affair, which would have gone on without her one assumes (she isn't THAT essential). But, it did seem a bit strange that she was so surprised about everything. Perhaps, it is a matter of being blind to what is right in front of you, partially because your hopes become reality. Happens a lot to the best of us, right?
Finally, while checking for the link and name for this entry, I saw this tidbit:
Sen. Sam Brownback, a candidate for the Republican nomination for president, was one of four senators who voted against the confirmation of Janet T. Neff to be a federal District Court judge in western Michigan. Her nomination was approved by a vote of 83-4.
Last year Brownback questioned Neff's views of gay marriage after learning about her role in the same-sex ceremony. He blocked her nomination, a priviledge that senators hold, but then agreed to allow it to come up for a vote after he met with her privately and she appeared for a Senate hearing.
Neff, a Michigan Court of Appeals judge, said during the hearing in May that the Massachusetts ceremony was for the daughter of close family friends and her partner. Neff said she gave a homily but did not preside over the service.
The C-SPAN "tidbit" actually was that the senator removed his hold. Curious to determine why he put a hold in the first place, I followed the story link to find out the details. Others have been following the story too, one noting that the one hold held up a block of confirmations. But, hey, "up and down" votes for the President isn't an absolute or anything in REALLY important cases, huh? It also underlines the separation of private and public. And, the fact that people who claim to be upset about state supported gay marriage really are often concerned with a whole lot more.
Still, some on the other side are concerned about private views, though one doubts they would go this far to hold up the works for them. Surely, not in this case. After all, they likely looked into this person, and a 83-4 sort probably isn't going to vote for gay marriage when the next case comes up. Well, who knows, I guess. As I said recently, some conservatives do their job when they are appointed, and equal rights for homosexuals -- especially when they include your loved ones -- is part of the deal. Sorry, senator -- just too many of them out there to keep out all judges who are intimately (not in that way, necessarily, dirty mind) connected with them in some fashion.
Again, that is why I'm a big believer of equal rights. Arbitrary discrimination is hard when I know one or more of the group being discriminated against.
---
* Sounds a bit crass, sure, but that's what you look at when you make a movie that you hope to make money. Nomani appears to think Pearl's widow is comfortable with the film, which at least one article I recall reading suggested as well. Overall, this background dynamics is pretty interesting.